(Original post by Erich Hartmann)
The operating model of the rails in Britain is indeed a bad one. What is allows is for franchise companies to milk the system to the maximum while Network Rail does all the crap.... little wonder it is no where near as good as the Swiss or German railways.
However nationalisation might not be the answer due to the appalling quality of the civil servants who are mostly scumbags.
It is quite easy for the whole system to be nationalized again, essentially when the franchise contract runs out all they have to do is not give it out again.
While it is indeed true that Britain doesn't have any large-scale homegrown car producers since the demise of the crap car maker called British Leyland, today more cars are built in Britain than in the 70s and 80s as there are plenty of Japanese cars that are assembled in Britain, there are also plenty of BMW MINIs that are being built in Britain. MG though now under Chinese ownership will eventually grow to be a big scale industry. While the companies may not be British owned, there are still plenty of cars built and these cars do so because there is a fairly large consumer base and they are attracted to the supply chain that exist.
Fuel? Sure it is getting expensive, but if you start reducing the number of car buyers many new technologies can't come to market, many technologies can't be made cheaper due to low volume and it will essentially mean most of these industries would then go to Germany. If these industries close due to more people taking the trains and not wanting a car then the business case for having a production facility in Britain is lost..... now don't tell me all these workers can then be absorbed into the railways because in reality there are very little new rails that can be built.
Finally it should be remembered that part of the reasons for high fuel cost is the effects of taxation on fuels, not really due to the high cost of oil itself. Also cars today are becoming far more economical so in time to come a standard normal family car will be able to achieve 1l/100km easily.
Actually I still remember the trains in Britain before privatization.... delays were a common place and rail strikes weren't any anomaly. Mrs Thatcher didn't agree to it due to the political cost it wasn't really due to any other reasons.
But one thing for sure ever since privatization services have improved a lot more than before 95% of all trains are on time 95% of the time. Sometimes it isn't the train companies fault that trains are late, remember they too have their own targets and KPIs to meet.
Somehow I doubt nationalization will bring about a more efficient service, if going by the banks are anything to go by, somehow I think the only thing that would happen is sure fares may stabilize but instead of it being reinvested it is going to go towards a few scums getting big huge bonuses instead.
Isn't that everything in Britain? In reality for anything to be successful it will need to have an business and economic case to it, else it is going to be a big black money pit.... you don't want Britain to be the next Greece now do you?
Sorry but I don't want my taxes going towards something I don't use and won't use. If and when I want to use it then I will pay for it through the ticket prices. Seems much fairer.
There are better ways to kick start the economy and the country doesn't even have the capability or the technologies to build a high speed railway....... more than likely it will contribute to the German economy, just like the Thameslink. The current HS2 in itself is hitting too many bottle necks and from what is being published it is unlikely to be successful and more than likely it will become one of the most expensive toys the government ever built that more than likely would then be sold off to someone else.... thanks but no thanks.
OK, firstly where is the money going to come from? Have you seen our budget deficits lately? Seen how much in debt our government is?
Somehow I doubt your envisaged nationalization program could work, there are very powerful unions you are dealing with.
Nope... why should it be cheap to travel? It needs to be sustainable and cheap doesn't mean sustainable..... while I don't think it should be so expensive to the point only the rich could afford it, there certainly is no reason for it to be cheap.... where it is too cheap too many people will use it and cause overcrowding, then you will need to build even more trains.
Ahhh... the common misconception again.
First off, Netherlands is a small but densely populated country. Britain on the other hand is a big country with densely populated cities with massive urban sprawls due to the years of poor planning.
Germany is in the midst of privatizing their rails
France indeed has a good rail network, but the downside it also has some of the highest tax rates in the world.... no thanks.
Somehow that model will not work. If you are going to have government intervention there will also be government management which essentially means the whole system gets politicized and become crap again like most things in Britain.
Also engineers don't just fall from the sky..... rail engineers take a long time to train and they cost a lot of money to hire. There is only 1 or 2 more train factories in Britain 1 is the Bombadier one which most likely will close down very soon and the other
There is only 1 train factory remaining in Britain it is owned by a Canadian company called Bombadier, they couldn't even get the contract for the Thameslink which went to the Germans.... where are you going to get the money and expertise to set up a new train factory? Whose technology/patents?
Mile for mile, a train isn't more environmentally friendly than a Chevrolet Volt or a Vauxhall Ampera.
Economically? You haven't presented a viable economic case for it either.
Socially? Why do you think giving plebs the chance to go on trains for less is a good thing?